EIGHTH TRACTATE.

NATURE CONTEMPLATION AND THE ONE.

1. Supposing we played a little before entering upon our serious concern and maintained that all things are striving after
Contemplation, looking to Vision as their one end — and this, not merely beings endowed with reason but even the unreasoning
animals, the Principle that rules in growing things, and the Earth that produces these — and that all achieve their purpose
in the measure possible to their kind, each attaining Vision and possessing itself of the End in its own way and degree,
some things in entire reality, others in mimicry and in image — we would scarcely find anyone to endure so strange a thesis.
But in a discussion entirely among ourselves there is no risk in a light handling of our own ideas.

Well — in the play of this very moment am I engaged in the act of Contemplation?

Yes; I and all that enter this play are in Contemplation: our play aims at Vision; and there is every reason to believe that
child or man, in sport or earnest, is playing or working only towards Vision, that every act is an effort towards Vision;
the compulsory act, which tends rather to bring the Vision down to outward things, and the act thought of as voluntary, less
concerned with the outer, originate alike in the effort towards Vision.

The case of Man will be treated later on; let us speak, first, of the earth and of the trees and vegetation in general, asking
ourselves what is the nature of Contemplation in them, how we relate to any Contemplative activity the labour and productiveness
of the earth, how Nature, held to be devoid of reason and even of conscious representation, can either harbour Contemplation
or produce by means of the Contemplation which it does not possess.

2. There is, obviously, no question here of hands or feet, of any implement borrowed or inherent: Nature needs simply the
Matter which it is to work upon and bring under Form; its productivity cannot depend upon mechanical operation. What driving
or hoisting goes to produce all that variety of colour and pattern?

The wax-workers, whose methods have been cited as parallel to the creative act of Nature, are unable to make colours; all
they can do to impose upon their handicraft colours taken from elsewhere. None the less there is a parallel which demands
attention: in the case of workers in such arts there must be something locked within themselves, an efficacy not going out
from them and yet guiding their hands in all their creation; and this observation should have indicated a similar phenomenon
in Nature; it should be clear that this indwelling efficacy, which makes without hands, must exist in Nature, no less than
in the craftsman — but, there, as a thing completely inbound. Nature need possess no outgoing force as against that remaining
within; the only moved thing is Matter; there can be no moved phase in this Nature-Principle; any such moved phase could
not be the primal mover; this Nature-Principle is no such moved entity; it is the unmoved Principle operating in the Kosmos.

We may be answered that the Reason-Principle is, no doubt, unmoved, but that the Nature-Principle, another being, operates
by motion.

But, if Nature entire is in question here, it is identical with the Reason-Principle; and any part of it that is unmoved is
the Reason-Principle. The Nature-Principle must be an Ideal-Form, not a compound of Form and Matter; there is no need for
it to possess Matter, hot and cold: the Matter that underlies it, on which it exercises its creative act, brings all that
with it, or, natively without quality, becomes hot and cold, and all the rest, when brought under Reason: Matter, to become
fire, demands the approach not of fire but of a Reason-Principle.

This is no slight evidence that in the animal and vegetable realms the Reason-Principles are the makers and that Nature is
a Reason-Principle producing a second Reason-Principle, its offspring, which, in turn, while itself, still, remaining intact,
communicates something to the underlie, Matter.

The Reason-Principle presiding over visible Shape is the very ultimate of its order, a dead thing unable to produce further:
that which produces in the created realm is the living Reason-Principle — brother no doubt, to that which gives mere shape,
but having life-giving power.

3. But if this Reason-Principle [Nature] is in act — and produces by the process indicated — how can it have any part in
Contemplation?

To begin with, since in all its production it is stationary and intact, a Reason-Principle self-indwelling, it is in its own
nature a Contemplative act. All doing must be guided by an Idea, and will therefore be distinct from that Idea: the Reason-Principle
then, as accompanying and guiding the work, will be distinct from the work; not being action but Reason-Principle it is,
necessarily, Contemplation. Taking the Reason-Principle, the Logos, in all its phases, the lowest and last springs from a
mental act [in the higher Logos] and is itself a contemplation, though only in the sense of being contemplated, but above
it stands the total Logos with its two distinguishable phases, first, that identified not as Nature but as All-Soul and, next,
that operating in Nature and being itself the Nature-Principle.

And does this Reason-Principle, Nature, spring from a contemplation?

Wholly and solely?

From self-contemplation, then? Or what are we to think? It derives from a Contemplation and some contemplating Being; how
are we to suppose it to have Contemplation itself?

The Contemplation springing from the reasoning faculty — that, I mean, of planning its own content, it does not possess.

But why not, since it is a phase of Life, a Reason-Principle and a creative Power?

Because to plan for a thing is to lack it: Nature does not lack; it creates because it possesses. Its creative act is simply
its possession of it own characteristic Essence; now its Essence, since it is a Reason-Principle, is to be at once an act
of contemplation and an object of contemplation. In other words, the, Nature-Principle produces by virtue of being an act
of contemplation, an object of contemplation and a Reason-Principle; on this triple character depends its creative efficacy.

Thus the act of production is seen to be in Nature an act of contemplation, for creation is the outcome of a contemplation
which never becomes anything else, which never does anything else, but creates by simply being a contemplation.

4. And Nature, asked why it brings forth its works, might answer if it cared to listen and to speak:

“It would have been more becoming to put no question but to learn in silence just as I myself am silent and make no habit
of talking. And what is your lesson? This; that whatsoever comes into being is my is my vision, seen in my silence, the vision
that belongs to my character who, sprung from vision, am vision-loving and create vision by the vision-seeing faculty within
me. The mathematicians from their vision draw their figures: but I draw nothing: I gaze and the figures of the material world
take being as if they fell from my contemplation. As with my Mother (the All-Soul] and the Beings that begot me so it is
with me: they are born of a Contemplation and my birth is from them, not by their Act but by their Being; they are the loftier
Reason-Principles, they contemplate themselves and I am born.”

Now what does this tell us?

It tells: that what we know as Nature is a Soul, offspring of a yet earlier Soul of more powerful life; that it possesses,
therefore, in its repose, a vision within itself; that it has no tendency upward nor even downward but is at peace, steadfast,
in its own Essence; that, in this immutability accompanied by what may be called Self-Consciousness, it possesses — within
the measure of its possibility — a knowledge of the realm of subsequent things perceived in virtue of that understanding
and consciousness; and, achieving thus a resplendent and delicious spectacle, has no further aim.

Of course, while it may be convenient to speak of “understanding” or “perception” in the Nature-Principle, this is not in
the full sense applicable to other beings; we are applying to sleep a word borrowed from the wake.

For the Vision on which Nature broods, inactive, is a self-intuition, a spectacle laid before it by virtue of its unaccompanied
self-concentration and by the fact that in itself it belongs to the order of intuition. It is a Vision silent but somewhat
blurred, for there exists another a clearer of which Nature is the image: hence all that Nature produces is weak; the weaker
act of intuition produces the weaker object.

In the same way, human beings, when weak on the side of contemplation, find in action their trace of vision and of reason:
their spiritual feebleness unfits them for contemplation; they are left with a void, because they cannot adequately seize
the vision; yet they long for it; they are hurried into action as their way to the vision which they cannot attain by intellection.
They act from the desire of seeing their action, and of making it visible and sensible to others when the result shall prove
fairly well equal to the plan. Everywhere, doing and making will be found to be either an attenuation or a complement of
vision-attenuation if the doer was aiming only at the thing done; complement if he is to possess something nobler to gaze
upon than the mere work produced.

Given the power to contemplate the Authentic, who would run, of choice, after its image?

The relation of action to contemplation is indicated in the way duller children, inapt to study and speculation, take to crafts
and manual labour.

5. This discussion of Nature has shown us how the origin of things is a Contemplation: we may now take the matter up to the
higher Soul; we find that the Contemplation pursued by this, its instinct towards knowing and enquiring, the birth pangs set
up by the knowledge it attains, its teeming fullness, have caused it — in itself, all one object of Vision — to produce
another Vision [that of the Kosmos]: it is just as a given science, complete in itself, becomes the source and cause of what
might be called a minor science in the student who attains to some partial knowledge of all its divisions. But the visible
objects and the objects of intellectual contemplation of this later creation are dim and helpless by the side of the content
of the Soul.

The primal phase of the Soul — inhabitant of the Supreme and, by its participation in the Supreme, filled and illuminated
— remains unchangeably There; but in virtue of that first participation, that of the primal participant, a secondary phase
also participates in the Supreme, and this secondary goes forth ceaselessly as Life streaming from Life; for energy runs through
the Universe and there is no extremity at which it dwindles out. But, travel as far as it may, it never draws that first part
of itself from the place whence the outgoing began: if it did, it would no longer be everywhere [its continuous Being would
be broken and] it would be present at the end, only, of its course.

None the less that which goes forth cannot be equal to that which remains.

In sum, then:

The Soul is to extend throughout the Universe, no spot void of its energy: but, a prior is always different from its secondary,
and energy is a secondary, rising as it must from contemplation or act; act, however, is not at this stage existent since
it depends upon contemplation: therefore the Soul, while its phases differ, must, in all of them, remain a contemplation and
what seems to be an act done under contemplation must be in reality that weakened contemplation of which we have spoken: the
engendered must respect the Kind, but in weaker form, dwindled in the descent.

All goes softly since nothing here demands the parade of thought or act upon external things: it is a Soul in vision and,
by this vision, creating its own subsequent — this Principle [of Nature], itself also contemplative but in the feebler degree
since it lies further away and cannot reproduce the quality or experiences of its prior — a Vision creates the Vision.

[Such creative contemplation is not inexplicable] for no limit exists either to contemplation or to its possible objects,
and this explains how the Soul is universal: where can this thing fail to be, which is one identical thing in every Soul;
Vision is not cabined within the bournes of magnitude.

This, of course, does not mean that the Soul is present at the same strength in each and every place and thing — any more
than that it is at the same strength in each of its own phases.

The Charioteer [the Leading Principle of the Soul, in the Phaedrus Myth] gives the two horses [its two dissonant faculties]
what he has seen and they, taking that gift, showed that they were hungry for what made that vision; there was something
lacking to them: if in their desire they acted, their action aimed at what they craved for — and that was vision, and an
object of vision.

6. Action, thus, is set towards contemplation and an object of contemplation, so that even those whose life is in doing have
seeing as their object; what they have not been able to achieve by the direct path, they hope to come at by the circuit.

Further: suppose they succeed; they desired a certain thing to come about, not in order to be unaware of it but to know it,
to see it present before the mind: their success is the laying up of a vision. We act for the sake of some good; this means
not for something to remain outside ourselves, not in order that we possess nothing but that we may hold the good of the action.
And hold it, where? Where but in the mind?

Thus once more, action is brought back to contemplation: for [mind or] Soul is a Reason-Principle and anything that one lays
up in the Soul can be no other than a Reason-Principle, a silent thing, the more certainly such a principle as the impression
made is the deeper.

This vision achieved, the acting instinct pauses; the mind is satisfied and seeks nothing further; the contemplation, in one
so conditioned, remains absorbed within as having acquired certainty to rest upon. The brighter the certainty, the more tranquil
is the contemplation as having acquired the more perfect unity; and — for now we come to the serious treatment of the subject
—

In proportion to the truth with which the knowing faculty knows, it comes to identification with the object of its knowledge.

As long as duality persists, the two lie apart, parallel as it were to each other; there is a pair in which the two elements
remain strange to one another, as when Ideal-Principles laid up in the mind or Soul remain idle.

Hence the Idea must not be left to lie outside but must be made one identical thing with the soul of the novice so that he
finds it really his own.

The Soul, once domiciled within that Idea and brought to likeness with it, becomes productive, active; what it always held
by its primary nature it now grasps with knowledge and applies in deed, so becoming, as it were, a new thing and, informed
as it now is by the purely intellectual, it sees [in its outgoing act] as a stranger looking upon a strange world. It was,
no doubt, essentially a Reason-Principle, even an Intellectual Principle; but its function is to see a [lower] realm which
these do not see.

For, it is a not a complete thing: it has a lack; it is incomplete in regard to its Prior; yet it, also, has a tranquil vision
of what it produces. What it has once brought into being it produces no more, for all its productiveness is determined by
this lack: it produces for the purpose of Contemplation, in the desire of knowing all its content: when there is question
of practical things it adapts its content to the outside order.

The Soul has a greater content than Nature has and therefore it is more tranquil; it is more nearly complete and therefore
more contemplative. It is, however, not perfect, and is all the more eager to penetrate the object of contemplation, and it
seeks the vision that comes by observation. It leaves its native realm and busies itself elsewhere; then it returns, and it
possesses its vision by means of that phase of itself from which it had parted. The self-indwelling Soul inclines less to
such experiences.

The Sage, then, is the man made over into a Reason-Principle: to others he shows his act but in himself he is Vision: such
a man is already set, not merely in regard to exterior things but also within himself, towards what is one and at rest: all
his faculty and life are inward-bent.

7. Certain Principles, then, we may take to be established — some self-evident, others brought out by our treatment above:

All the forms of Authentic Existence spring from vision and are a vision. Everything that springs from these Authentic Existences
in their vision is an object of vision-manifest to sensation or to true knowledge or to surface-awareness. All act aims at
this knowing; all impulse is towards knowledge, all that springs from vision exists to produce Ideal-Form, that is a fresh
object of vision, so that universally, as images of their engendering principles, they all produce objects of vision, Ideal-forms.
In the engendering of these sub-existences, imitations of the Authentic, it is made manifest that the creating powers operate
not for the sake of creation and action but in order to produce an object of vision. This same vision is the ultimate purpose
of all the acts of the mind and, even further downward, of all sensation, since sensation also is an effort towards knowledge;
lower still, Nature, producing similarly its subsequent principle, brings into being the vision and Idea that we know in
it. It is certain, also, that as the Firsts exist in vision all other things must be straining towards the same condition;
the starting point is, universally, the goal.

When living things reproduce their Kind, it is that the Reason-Principles within stir them; the procreative act is the expression
of a contemplation, a travail towards the creation of many forms, many objects of contemplation, so that the universe may
be filled full with Reason-Principles and that contemplation may be, as nearly as possible, endless: to bring anything into
being is to produce an Idea-Form and that again is to enrich the universe with contemplation: all the failures, alike in being
and in doing, are but the swerving of visionaries from the object of vision: in the end the sorriest craftsman is still a
maker of forms, ungracefully. So Love, too, is vision with the pursuit of Ideal-Form.

8. From this basis we proceed:

In the advancing stages of Contemplation rising from that in Nature, to that in the Soul and thence again to that in the Intellectual-Principle
itself — the object contemplated becomes progressively a more and more intimate possession of the Contemplating Beings,
more and more one thing with them; and in the advanced Soul the objects of knowledge, well on the way towards the Intellectual-Principle,
are close to identity with their container.

Hence we may conclude that, in the Intellectual-Principle Itself, there is complete identity of Knower and Known, and this
not by way of domiciliation, as in the case of even the highest soul, but by Essence, by the fact that, there, no distinction
exists between Being and Knowing; we cannot stop at a principle containing separate parts; there must always be a yet higher,
a principle above all such diversity.

The Supreme must be an entity in which the two are one; it will, therefore, be a Seeing that lives, not an object of vision
like things existing in something other than themselves: what exists in an outside element is some mode of living-thing;
it is not the Self-Living.

Now admitting the existence of a living thing that is at once a Thought and its object, it must be a Life distinct from the
vegetative or sensitive life or any other life determined by Soul.

In a certain sense no doubt all lives are thoughts — but qualified as thought vegetative, thought sensitive and thought psychic.

What, then, makes them thoughts?

The fact that they are Reason-Principles. Every life is some form of thought, but of a dwindling clearness like the degrees
of life itself. The first and clearest Life and the first Intelligence are one Being. The First Life, then, is an Intellection
and the next form of Life is the next Intellection and the last form of Life is the last form of Intellection. Thus every
Life, of the order strictly so called, is an Intellection.

But while men may recognize grades in life they reject grade in thought; to them there are thoughts [full and perfect] and
anything else is no thought.

This is simply because they do not seek to establish what Life is.

The essential is to observe that, here again, all reasoning shows that whatever exists is a bye-work of visioning: if, then,
the truest Life is such by virtue of an Intellection and is identical with the truest Intellection, then the truest Intellection
is a living being; Contemplation and its object constitute a living thing, a Life, two inextricably one.

The duality, thus, is a unity; but how is this unity also a plurality?

The explanation is that in a unity there can be no seeing [a pure unity has no room for vision and an object]; and in its
Contemplation the One is not acting as a Unity; if it were, the Intellectual-Principle cannot exist. The Highest began as
a unity but did not remain as it began; all unknown to itself, it became manifold; it grew, as it were, pregnant: desiring
universal possession, it flung itself outward, though it were better had it never known the desire by which a Secondary came
into being: it is like a Circle [in the Idea] which in projection becomes a figure, a surface, a circumference, a centre,
a system of radii, of upper and lower segments. The Whence is the better; the Whither is less good: the Whence is not the
same as the Whence-followed-by-a-Whither; the Whence all alone is greater than with the Whither added to it.

The Intellectual-Principle on the other hand was never merely the Principle of an inviolable unity; it was a universal as
well and, being so, was the Intellectual-Principle of all things. Being, thus, all things and the Principle of all, it must
essentially include this part of itself [this element-of-plurality] which is universal and is all things: otherwise, it contains
a part which is not Intellectual-Principle: it will be a juxtaposition of non-Intellectuals, a huddled heap waiting to be
made over from the mass of things into the Intellectual-Principle!

We conclude that this Being is limitless and that, in all the outflow from it, there is no lessening either in its emanation,
since this also is the entire universe, nor in itself, the starting point, since it is no assemblage of parts [to be diminished
by any outgo].

9. Clearly a Being of this nature is not the primal existent; there must exist that which transcends it, that Being [the Absolute],
to which all our discussion has been leading.

In the first place, Plurality is later than Unity. The Intellectual-Principle is a number [= the expression of a plurality];
and number derives from unity: the source of a number such as this must be the authentically One. Further, it is the sum
of an Intellectual-Being with the object of its Intellection, so that it is a duality; and, given this duality, we must find
what exists before it.

What is this?

The Intellectual-Principle taken separately, perhaps?

No: an Intellect is always inseparable from an intelligible object; eliminate the intelligible, and the Intellectual-Principle
disappears with it. If, then, what we are seeking cannot be the Intellectual-Principle but must be something that rejects
the duality there present, then the Prior demanded by that duality must be something on the further side of the Intellectual-Principle.

But might it not be the Intelligible object itself?

No: for the Intelligible makes an equally inseparable duality with the Intellectual-Principle.

If, then, neither the Intellectual-Principle nor the Intelligible Object can be the First Existent, what is?

Our answer can only be:

The source of both.

What will This be; under what character can we picture It?

It must be either Intellective or without Intellection: if Intellective it is the Intellectual-Principle; if not, it will
be without even knowledge of itself — so that, either way, what is there so august about it?

If we define it as The Good and the wholly simplex, we will, no doubt, be telling the truth, but we will not be giving any
certain and lucid account of it as long as we have in mind no entity in which to lodge the conception by which we define it.

Yet: our knowledge of everything else comes by way of our intelligence; our power is that of knowing the intelligible by means
of the intelligence: but this Entity transcends all of the intellectual nature; by what direct intuition, then, can it be
brought within our grasp?

To this question the answer is that we can know it only in the degree of human faculty: we indicate it by virtue of what in
ourselves is like it.

For in us, also, there is something of that Being; nay, nothing, ripe for that participation, can be void of it.

Wherever you be, you have only to range over against this omnipresent Being that in you which is capable of drawing from
It, and you have your share in it: imagine a voice sounding over a vast waste of land, and not only over the emptiness alone
but over human beings; wherever you be in that great space you have but to listen and you take the voice entire — entire
though yet with a difference.

And what do we take when we thus point the Intelligence?

The Intellectual-Principle in us must mount to its origins: essentially a thing facing two ways, it must deliver itself over
to those powers within it which tend upward; if it seeks the vision of that Being, it must become something more than Intellect.

For the Intellectual-Principle is the earliest form of Life: it is the Activity presiding over the outflowing of the universal
Order — the outflow, that is, of the first moment, not that of the continuous process.

In its character as Life, as emanation, as containing all things in their precise forms and not merely in the agglomerate
mass — for this would be to contain them imperfectly and inarticulately — it must of necessity derive from some other Being,
from one that does not emanate but is the Principle of Emanation, of Life, of Intellect and of the Universe.

For the Universe is not a Principle and Source: it springs from a source, and that source cannot be the All or anything belonging
to the All, since it is to generate the All, and must be not a plurality but the Source of plurality, since universally a
begetting power is less complex than the begotten. Thus the Being that has engendered the Intellectual-Principle must be more
simplex than the Intellectual-Principle.

We may be told that this engendering Principle is the One-and-All.

But, at that, it must be either each separate entity from among all or it will be all things in the one mass.

Now if it were the massed total of all, it must be of later origin than any of the things of which it is the sum; if it precedes
the total, it differs from the things that make up the total and they from it: if it and the total of things constitute a
co-existence, it is not a Source. But what we are probing for must be a Source; it must exist before all, that all may be
fashioned as sequel to it.

As for the notion that it may be each separate entity of the All, this would make a self-Identity into a what you like, where
you like, indifferently, and would, besides, abolish all distinction in things themselves.

Once more we see that this can be no thing among things but must be prior to all things.

10. And what will such a Principle essentially be?

The potentiality of the Universe: the potentiality whose non-existence would mean the non-existence of all the Universe and
even of the Intellectual-Principle which is the primal Life and all Life.

This Principle on the thither side of Life is the cause of Life — for that Manifestation of Life which is the Universe of
things is not the First Activity; it is itself poured forth, so to speak, like water from a spring.

Imagine a spring that has no source outside itself; it gives itself to all the rivers, yet is never exhausted by what they
take, but remains always integrally as it was; the tides that proceed from it are at one within it before they run their several
ways, yet all, in some sense, know beforehand down what channels they will pour their streams.

Or: think of the Life coursing throughout some mighty tree while yet it is the stationary Principle of the whole, in no sense
scattered over all that extent but, as it were, vested in the root: it is the giver of the entire and manifold life of the
tree, but remains unmoved itself, not manifold but the Principle of that manifold life.

And this surprises no one: though it is in fact astonishing how all that varied vitality springs from the unvarying, and how
that very manifoldness could not be unless before the multiplicity there were something all singleness; for, the Principle
is not broken into parts to make the total; on the contrary, such partition would destroy both; nothing would come into being
if its cause, thus broken up, changed character. Thus we are always brought back to The One.

Every particular thing has a One of its own to which it may be traced; the All has its One, its Prior but not yet the Absolute
One; through this we reach that Absolute One, where all such reference comes to an end.

Now when we reach a One — the stationary Principle — in the tree, in the animal, in Soul, in the All — we have in every
case the most powerful, the precious element: when we come to the One in the Authentically Existent Beings — their Principle
and source and potentiality — shall we lose confidence and suspect it of being-nothing?

Certainly this Absolute is none of the things of which it is the source — its nature is that nothing can be affirmed of it
— not existence, not essence, not life — since it is That which transcends all these. But possess yourself of it by the very
elimination of Being and you hold a marvel. Thrusting forward to This, attaining, and resting in its content, seek to grasp
it more and more — understanding it by that intuitive thrust alone, but knowing its greatness by the Beings that follow upon
it and exist by its power.

Another approach:

The Intellectual-Principle is a Seeing, and a Seeing which itself sees; therefore it is a potentiality which has become effective.

This implies the distinction of Matter and Form in it — as there must be in all actual seeing — the Matter in this case
being the Intelligibles which the Intellectual-Principle contains and sees. All actual seeing implies duality; before the
seeing takes place there is the pure unity [of the power of seeing]. That unity [of principle] acquires duality [in the act
of seeing], and the duality is [always to be traced back to] a unity.

Now as our sight requires the world of sense for its satisfaction and realization, so the vision in the Intellectual-Principle
demands, for its completion, The Good.

It cannot be, itself, The Good, since then it would not need to see or to perform any other Act; for The Good is the centre
of all else, and it is by means of The Good that every thing has Act, while the Good is in need of nothing and therefore possesses
nothing beyond itself.

Once you have uttered “The Good,” add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce
a deficiency.

Do not even say that it has Intellection; you would be dividing it; it would become a duality, Intellect and the Good. The
Good has no need of the Intellectual-Principle which, on the contrary, needs it, and, attaining it, is shaped into Goodness
and becomes perfect by it: the Form thus received, sprung from the Good, brings it to likeness with the Good.

Thus the traces of the Good discerned upon it must be taken as indication of the nature of that Archetype: we form a conception
of its Authentic Being from its image playing upon the Intellectual-Principle. This image of itself, it has communicated to
the Intellect that contemplates it: thus all the striving is on the side of the Intellect, which is the eternal striver and
eternally the attainer. The Being beyond neither strives, since it feels no lack, nor attains, since it has no striving. And
this marks it off from the Intellectual-Principle, to which characteristically belongs the striving, the concentrated strain
towards its Form.

Yet: The Intellectual-Principle; beautiful; the most beautiful of all; lying lapped in pure light and in clear radiance; circumscribing
the Nature of the Authentic Existents; the original of which this beautiful world is a shadow and an image; tranquil in the
fullness of glory since in it there is nothing devoid of intellect, nothing dark or out of rule; a living thing in a life
of blessedness: this, too, must overwhelm with awe any that has seen it, and penetrated it, to become a unit of its Being.

But: As one that looks up to the heavens and sees the splendour of the stars thinks of the Maker and searches, so whoever
has contemplated the Intellectual Universe and known it and wondered for it must search after its Maker too. What Being has
raised so noble a fabric? And where? And how? Who has begotten such a child, this Intellectual-Principle, this lovely abundance
so abundantly endowed?

The Source of all this cannot be an Intellect; nor can it be an abundant power: it must have been before Intellect and abundance
were; these are later and things of lack; abundance had to be made abundant and Intellection needed to know.

These are very near to the un-needing, to that which has no need of Knowing, they have abundance and intellection authentically,
as being the first to possess. But, there is that before them which neither needs nor possesses anything, since, needing or
possessing anything else, it would not be what it is — the Good.